Part One showed us why men should not marry. This article shows the consequences of having anything to do with children.

Two examples of these consequences happened in the last few weeks.

In the first, a woman conceived after a one night stand. She wanted the child adopted but not by her family or the father. Her wish was granted. This is because it was in the interests of the child and because the father's right to a family life was not violated - as it does not exist.

In the 1989 Children Act the first line states that the interests of the child shall be paramount. It also states that any scoial services shall involve the family as much as possible. But the family courts have interpretted the interests of the child as the interests as the mother, and this case further endorses that.

In the second case, a man donated sperm to a lesbian couple, and later became liable for child support because the couple had split up. The man had seen the children twice, but whether he had seen them or not is irrelevant. A man has no right to see his children in law - only an obligation to pay for them.

Of course these cases are slightly unusual. However 100 children a day lose contact with their father following divorce or separation, and 40% of contact orders issued by the family court are broken.

The author personally knows someone who did not see his children for six months. Then when his ex-wife got the majority of the divorce assets, he was asked to do the majority of the child care so she could work to earn more money.

In another case, protracted legal battles over child access cost one man a £20 million fortune.

Even some fathers who have stayed at home while their wives worked have been asked to hand over custody of the children. There are City workers who not only cannot see their children, but are banned from applying to court in case it causes the mother distress.

One man was sentenced to 84 days (serving 42 days in Wormwood Scrubs) for texting his child on his fifth birthday (which fell outside of allowed contact times).

The 1989 Children Act contains everything necessary for proper family life - however the way it has been implemented has reversed the original intention.

I realize that this might come across as slightly anti-women. I do actually accept that women usually make the better carers, but my issue is with the assumption that men are always bad carers. The family courts assume that men work and women look after children. Women will not get equality in the office until men get equality in the home.

I will return to divorce in the next article with further reason not to marry.


- The author appears in the book Fathers 4 Justice by Matt O'Connor.

Showing results 1 - 4 of 4.

Add Comment (go on... log in)

TODAY

• X-Factor Has the X-Factor
• So Londoners Are Nice After All
• The Market is in Your Hands

THIS WEEK

• Can a City Girl Become a Country Girl?
• So Londoners Are Nice After All
• Whiskey, Women and Gold